Allowed

T.Manjari, Aged 55 v. State Rep by

Madras HC6 Mar 2018CRL OP/6014/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to register an FIR based on her complaint dated 21.01.2018. Court observed that keeping the complaint in abeyance was unjustified and enforced mandatory legal principles regarding FIR registration and preliminary inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to copy complaint to SHO; second respondent to register FIR or conduct preliminary inquiry within 15 days.

T.Manjari, Aged 55 Vs State Rep by — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.03.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.6014 of 2018

T.Manjari

... Petitioner

Vs.

State rep by

¶10

The Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai.

¶11

The Inspector of Police, P6, Kodungaiyur Police Station,

¶12

Kodungaiyur,Chennai. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the second respondent to register a FIR based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 21.01.2018 and investigate the same.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Velmurugan For Respondents : Mrs.P.Krithka Kamal Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This petition is filed seeking a direction to the second respondent to register a FIR based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 21.01.2018 and investigate the same.

¶17

2.By consent of both sides, this Criminal Original Petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶18

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of a complaint given by her on 21.01.2018 to the second respondent, the same has been kept in abeyance without any action. It is well settled in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others [2013 (6) CTC 353], that registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if an information furnished to the police officer disclose commission of a cognizable offence and in cases where the information does not disclose a cognizable offence, a preliminary enquiry has to be conducted.

¶19

The second respondent is not justified in having received the complaint and keeping it unattended without any further

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

action. In view of the same, the petitioner has made out a case for this Court to invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

¶22

In the result, the petitioner is directed to give a copy of the complaint dated 21.01.2018 to the Station House Officer having territorial jurisdiction over the issue. On receipt of the said copy of the complaint, the concerned Station House Officer shall adhere to the following directions.

¶23

1)If the information received by the 2^nd respondent discloses commission of a cognizable offence, then, the same shall be forthwith registered.

¶24

2)If an information received does not disclose a cognizable offence, the 2^nd respondent shall conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed therein or not and such inquiry shall be completed within a period of fifteen days from the date of information.

¶25

If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered, if not already registered or closed.

¶26

If the preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, the closure report must be recorded along with the reasonings and a copy of the same shall be furnished to the complainant within one week.

¶27

5)All information relating to cognizable offences whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading an inquiry must be reflected in the general diary/station diary/daily diary of the 2^nd respondent's police station.

¶28

In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed with the above directions.

¶29

True Copy

¶30

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶33

¶34

The Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai.

¶35

The Inspector of Police,

¶36

P6, Kodungaiyur Police Station,

¶37

Kodungaiyur,Chennai.

¶38

3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1 CC to Mr.M.Velmurugan, Advocate sr 17297.
Crl.O.P.No.6014 of 2018
GSP(21/03/2018)

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

T.Manjari, Aged 55 v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Manjari, Aged 55 v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.R.Sriram, Vs Tamilnadu Newsprint

A.G.Narasimhan, Aged 47 Years, Vs the Commissioner of Police

E.M.Somasundaram, Vs the State Rep. by

Y.Akbar Ahmed, M/37 Years Vs the Deputy Commissioner of

N.Meenakchisundram, Vs Inspector of Police

A.S.Jayabal (Aged 58 Years) Vs the State Rep. by Its